Split mouth randomized controlled clinical trial of beveled cavity preparations in primary molars: an 18-Month follow up

Oliveira, Cristiana Aroeira G.R.; Dias, Patricia Fernanda; Santos, Márcia Pereira Alves dos; Maia, Lucianne Cople

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2008.05.006

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Application of this conversion system to the present results gives the following ranges of alpha and bravo scores for the surface and marginal staining criterion of the four groups: 66.7–88% (alpha) and 8.3–33.3% (bravo). These results are in accordance with previously reported ranges of marginal discoloration of 66.7–81% for alpha and 14–31.6% for bravo according to the Ryge criteria [17, 18, 20]. …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…As for marginal adaptation, the rates reported in literature are 36.8–92% for alpha and 5–63.2% for bravo scores, indicating a wide variation between the different studies [15, 17, 18, 20]. Compared to those of the aforementioned studies, the rate of alpha scores in the present study is lower (7.7–48%) whereas the rate of bravo is higher (50–88.5%), a finding that may be related to the longer evaluation time of the restorations in the present study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Randomized Clinical Trial of Composite Restorations in Primary Teeth: Effect of Adhesive System after Three Years

Donmez

Turgut

Uysal

et al. 2016

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical performance of composite restorations placed with different adhesive systems in primary teeth. In 32 patients, 128 composite restorations were placed using a split-mouth design as follows (4 groups/patient): three-step etch-and-rinse (Group 1), two-step etch-and-rinse (Group 2), two-step self-etch (Group 3), and one-step self-etch (Group 4). The restorations were clinically evaluated at baseline and at 6, 18, and 36 months according to the FDI criteria. There was no significant difference between the adhesive systems in retention of the restorations (p > 0.05). Over time, there was a statistically significant decrease in marginal adaptation in all groups, whereas surface and marginal staining significantly increased in Groups 3 and 4 (p < 0.05). The etch-and-rinse adhesive systems resulted in better marginal adaptation than the self-etch adhesive systems (p < 0.05). It was concluded that preetching of the primary enamel might help improve the clinical performance of the self-etch adhesive systems in primary teeth.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Randomized Clinical Trial of Composite Restorations in Primary Teeth: Effect of Adhesive System after Three Years

Donmez

Turgut

Uysal

et al. 2016

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There was no uniform adhesion technique chosen for composite resin placement. Most of the studies with composite resin restorations (8/12) chose the etch-and-rinse procedure (Akman and Tosun 2020; Alves dos Santos et al 2010;Barr-Agholme et al 1991;Cavalheiro et al 2020;Dermata et al 2018;El-Housseiny et al 2019;Hse and Wei 1997;Kupietzky et al 2019;Oliveira et al 2008). This makes comparisons between the studies challenging, even if the same restorative material is used.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three studies included only composite resins in their experimental groups, testing parameters of the application technique. Therefore, the variables were: (i) dentine etching time 15 s vs. 7 s, (ii) etch-and-rinse vs. self-etch adhesion, (iii) bevel vs. no bevel during cavity preparation (Cavalheiro et al 2020 ; Lenzi et al 2017 ; Oliveira et al 2008 ). Most of the studies used hybrid composite resin and 3 studies reported results for bulk-fill composite resins (Akman and Tosun 2020 ; Cavalheiro et al 2020 ; Ehlers et al 2019 ).…”

Section: Reported Outcomes For the Restorative Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp therapy: a systematic review

Amend

Boutsiouki

Bekes³

et al. 2022

Eur Arch Paediatr Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To systematically search the available evidence and evaluate the clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for restoration of carious primary teeth. The findings aimed to support the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry (EAPD) guidelines development. Methods Literature search was performed by searching 4 electronic databases for eligible randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth up to December 28th, 2020. Quality assessment was performed with the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). Results Of 1685 identified articles 29 RCTs were finally deemed as eligible for inclusion. Annual failure rates were: Amalgam 1–28%; atraumatic restorative treatment 1.2–37.1%; glass-ionomer cement (GIC) 7.6–16.6%, metal-reinforced GIC 29.9%, resin-modified GIC 1.9–16.9%, high-viscosity GIC 2.9–25.6%; glass carbomer ≤ 46.2%; compomer 0–14.7%; composite resin (CR) 0–19.5%, bulk-fill CR 0–16.9%; zirconia crowns 3.3%, composite strip crowns 15%, and preformed metal crowns (Hall-Technique) 3.1%. Secondary caries, poor marginal adaptation, loss of retention, and fracture of restoration were reported as reasons for failure. Four studies were evaluated at unclear and 25 at high risk of bias. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity, and the diversity of tested materials across included studies did not allow for meta-analyses. Conclusions Within the limitations of this systematic review, namely, the heterogeneity and the overall high risk of bias among included studies, clear recommendations based on solid evidence for the best restorative approach in primary teeth cannot be drawn. There is a need for future thoroughly implemented RCTs evaluating restorations in primary teeth to close this knowledge gap.

show abstract

“…[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] Even with all these advantages reported and proved, some clinicians often relegated and even contraindicate beveling claiming it does not promote better restoration performance and/or promotes a lower thickness of the restorative material, over extension of cavity margins and exposure of the restorative material/tooth interface at areas of occlusal contact. [23][24][25] This article aimed to evaluate the effect of bevel on the fracture resistance and pattern in MOD class II cavity preparations, with and without endodontic access, after restoration with direct composite. The null hypothesis tested was that there should be no difference between the different cavosurface angle treatments considering the resistance and fracture pattern of direct composite restored teeth, with or without endodontic access.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of a conservative approach for restoration of extensively destroyed posterior teeth

Mondelli

Rizzante

Valera³

et al. 2019

J. Appl. Oral Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Extensive restorations in posterior teeth always bring doubts to the clinicians regarding the best protocol, mainly when structures of reinforcement were lost. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of beveling on the fracture resistance and pattern of class II (MOD) restored teeth. Methodology: Ninety human premolars were randomly assigned into 9 groups: CTR (control/sound); NC (cavity preparation, non-restored); RU (restored, unbeveled); RTB (restored, entire angle beveling); RPB (restored, partial/occlusal beveling); EC (endodontic access/EA, non-restored); EU (EA, unbeveled); ETB (EA, entire angle beveling); EPB (EA, partial/occlusal beveling). Teeth were restored with Esthet X resin composite and stored in distilled water for 24 h before the inclusion in PVC cylinders. The axial loading tests were performed with 500 kgF at 0.5 mm/min crosshead speed until fracture of the specimens. Fracture resistance and pattern were accessed and data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD test (α=0.05). Results: Mean (±SD) failure loads ranged from 136.56 (11.62) to 174.04 (43.5) kgF in the groups tested without endodontic access. For endodontically accessed teeth, fracture resistance ranged from 95.54 (13.05) to 126.51 (19.88) kgF. Beveling of the cavosurface angle promoted the highest fracture resistance values (p<0.05) and prevented catastrophic fractures. Conclusions: Cavosurface angle beveling is capable of improving fracture resistance and pattern for both endodonticaly accessed and nonaccessed teeth.

show abstract

Split mouth randomized controlled clinical trial of beveled cavity preparations in primary molars: an 18-Month follow up

Cited by 6 publications

References 12 publications

Randomized Clinical Trial of Composite Restorations in Primary Teeth: Effect of Adhesive System after Three Years

Randomized Clinical Trial of Composite Restorations in Primary Teeth: Effect of Adhesive System after Three Years

Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp therapy: a systematic review

Assessment of a conservative approach for restoration of extensively destroyed posterior teeth

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About